Hi, i am new on this list but i read articles about the LPPL (LaTeX Project Public License). I posted the message below to comp.text.tex and receive no answer. Are there kind people here to comment my questions/assertions?
TIA Denis ====================================================================== From: Denis Barbier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Distribution of packages (was Re: french package status) Hi folks, forgive my stupidity, i don't understand how a LaTeX distribution (say teTex) does not violate the LPPL. One of the problem is -> Redistribution of unchanged files is allowed provided that all files -> that make up the distribution of The Program are distributed. -> In particular this means that The Program has to be distributed -> including its documentation if documentation was part of the original -> distribution. Now, let's have a look at a recent texmf tree distributed with teTeX teTeX-texmf-0.9-990517.tar.gz prompt> find . -name manifest.txt ./doc/latex/base/manifest.txt ./doc/latex/mfnfss/manifest.txt ./doc/latex/tools/manifest.txt ./doc/latex/cyrillic/manifest.txt 1) It's explained in doc/latex/base/README.tetex that all files listed in manifest.txt can be retrieved from CTAN. Is it sufficient? 2) How to know if other packages (e.g. babel) are complete? 3) ./doc/latex/base/manifest.txt lists all source files of the LaTeX base system. These files are not part of teTeX-texmf-0.9-990517.tar.gz but provided in another archive. Should teTeX be encumbered by 14Mb of compressed source files? 4) Some Linux distributions split teTeX and put the documentation into a separate package. This also violates the LPPL. The license of C programs often distinguishes between distribution under source and binary forms. Could the LPPL be changed to ease redistribution of pre-installed packages? Thanx for reading. Denis
